ILNews

Editorial: New judges add more than needed diversity

Rebecca Collier
June 23, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

Those of us on staff here at the newspaper that grew up in Indiana and were of a certain age to pay attention to the news can likely recall when Judge Sarah Evans Barker was confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

It was a big deal, the first female federal judge here, in an era when few women were in positions of power and authority. All of a sudden, here was a role model, though she may not have wanted that job. Someone for women who were young at the time to look to and consider “Well, if she can be a federal judge, then why can’t I ____?” and we filled in our own blank. She’s an intelligent woman, whose quick wit and easy manner we’d later discover puts people at ease, and a gifted storyteller.

Fast-forward about 30 years – how could it have taken 30 years? – and then there were two female federal judges with the addition of the Hon. Theresa Springmann in Indiana’s Northern District. Judge Springmann had been a magistrate judge in that court before being confirmed as an Article III judge in 2003.

What Judge Barker says in a news story in this issue of the newspaper about the absolutely historic confirmation of Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson and Judge Tanya Walton Pratt is worth repeating here:

“You may not be able to tell any difference in work product or whether an opinion is written by a man or woman judge, but this will enhance the quality of justice and makes it deeper and broader and even more credible.”

That’s what bringing diversity to the federal bench will do for all of us.

“Their coming to the court is so special and new, but it’s been a long time coming,” Judge Barker continued speaking about her new colleagues. “It matters so much that the bench is diverse, and in rapid order we’ve gone to being a majority on the court after many years of being a distinct minority.”

It also matters more than words can express that the federal bench in Indiana finally has its first African-American judge. Judge Pratt may now be a member of a majority on the federal bench in the Southern District, but she is still a part of a distinct minority.

“This has been a test of patience,” Judge Pratt told our reporter, speaking about the nomination process, “but I’m so very happy and honored. I do respect the historic significance of being the first African-American in the state to join the federal bench, and that’s really a credit to Sen. (Evan) Bayh for looking outside the traditional group of candidates to be inclusive.”

One can hardly overstate the importance of having an African-American judge on the federal bench, for the same reason Judge Barker was such an inspiration for all Indiana women who would take notice of her, even those who would never attend a law school.

“You have to have those distinguished role models … so you can see others work hard and do it, and know that you can, too,” Judge Pratt said. She and Judge Magnus-Stinson are of the same mind when they said that one of the best parts of all this has been to see the pride in their daughters’ eyes over their accomplishments. “Any little girl can do it.”•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT